15 June 2006

Bishop Duncan Speaks.

Bishop Duncan's remarks from last night's hearing:

STATEMENT OF BISHOP ROBERT DUNCAN To the Special Committee Hearing Wednesday, 14th June, A.D. 2006

I thank the Special Commission and the members of the Committee for the impossible work that you have attempted to do in keeping the conserving and progressive wings of this Church together: a task I fear that became impossible with the 2003 tear in our fabric.

I stand to speak about the inadequacy of the resolution as presented. I do so chiefly in the words of my friend and colleague N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham and a member of the Lambeth Commission:

It is very important not let the plethora of material, in [the Special Commission Report] and in all the various commentaries upon it, detract attention from the central and quite central question: Will ECUSA comply with the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are placed without amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not to comply with Windsor. Only if the crucial Resolutions, especially A160 and A161, are amended in line with Windsor paragraph 134, can there be any claim of compliance….If the resolutions are not amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way ahead might be found, the rest of theCommunion will have to conclude that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor, in other words, to ‘walk apart’ (Windsor 157).

I believe, with the greatest of heartbreak and sadness, that the day has arrived where those who have chosen the Episcopal Church because of its catholic and evangelical reliability, and those who have chosen the Episcopal Church for its revolutionary character, can no longer be held together. For which Episcopal Church will the Committee, and then this Convention, decide? The future in Communion rests only with the former of the two. It cannot be both ways into the future.

*Bishop Duncan is Bishop of Pittsburgh & Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network.

5 Comments:

Scott K said...

After reading what +Durham and ++York have said in the last two days, and contrasting that with the words from Susan Russell, Gene Robinson and Elizabeth Keaton, I tend to agree - how can the two sides possibly stay together? I can't see how the convention will be able to pass anything that comes close to a satisfactory response to WR.

I agree. I think that York's comments are especially telling as he's no bomb throwing fundie. His words may the one's that really push the committee to put Windsor's actual words in front of the Convention. It's clear now that even, to be a little perjorative, the company men among the C of E bishops see the current language as dishonest.

I support the idea of a moratorium, but I am really taken aback by the idea, especially as proposed by +Wright (whom I immensely respect), that TEC has to conform to the Windsor Report. The Windsor Report is not an authoritative document... the instruments of unity aren't authoritative either.

The Anglican Communion exists because of baptism, shared faith, and communion with Canterbury. I really don't like this hard authoritative line that is coming down, not because I feel free in Christ or any of that nonsense, but because it isn't how our polity operates.

That said, we ought to accept the moratorium while simultaneously pushing for serious and intentional discussion within the entire AC about the role of homosexual persons in the life of the Church and how Scripture regarding homosexuality ought to be and ought not to be read.

The biggest problem with the proposed moratoria (of approving gay bishops and authorizing rites for same-sex union blessings), as I see it, is that, for three successive Lambuth Conferences, the bishops of the Anglican Communion have pledged to listen to the experiences and concerns of GLBT Episcopalians/ Anglicans. But it has never happened to any notable degree. Now the Windsor Report calls for these moratoria until a further concensus emerges in the Anglican Communion on these issues.

As much as I personally oppose the moratoria, I could actually consider them if I geniuinely believed fruitful, honest discussion and listening would follow. I don't think anyone on either "side" actually believes that further discussion will lead to any new consensus on these issues. And I don't believe that any cost stemming from the absence of such consensus must therefore be born by GLBT Episcoplaians alone, via the moratoria. Under these proposals, no one else's participation in the Episcopal Church would be curtailed; no wonder GLBT Episcopalians are so against them.

It seems to me that we cannot afford any pragmatism in considering a moratoria. The goal has to be faithfulness, so any concern for ends ought to be out of bounds in the discussion. The goal isn't victory. If it is, then we are all in trouble.

Call that wild-eyed idealism, but I'd rather be faithful than victorious.